The only instance I know of a flag moving on the lunar surface without anyone actively messing with it is the film from Eagle’s ascent, when the exhaust from the APS basically kicked the crap out it.

There’s no other documented instance of a flag waving on its own more than a few seconds after one of the astronauts touched it or the pole it was mounted on. Without air to damp its motion, it would swing a few extra seconds compared to what we’re used to on the Earth’s surface, but that’s it.

Note that there is a rod at the top keeping the flag extended. The flag material was crumpled when stowed and not heavy enough to completely straighten itself out (1/6th Earth normal gravity, remember), which makes it *look* like the flag is waving in a breeze the still photos.

But it’s not. In the video footage, it stays stock still once the astronauts stop futzing with it.

If everyone would calm down there are REAL VALID arguments for at least the pics and film footage being fake.Lunar Rovers that dont leave tracks , differing shadow directions, pictures using the same backdrops that are off scale an earth too small in the sky etc. And how do you take pictures with ordinary film in deep space without fogging the film ?

If everyone would calm down there are REAL VALID arguments for at least the pics and film footage being fake.Lunar Rovers that dint leave tracks , differing shadow directions, pictures using the same backdrops that are off scale an earth too small in the sky etc. And how do you take pictures with ordinary film in deep space without fogging the film

“The movie film of this event is even more revealing. As Bean carried the instrument package across the lunar surface, the bar bent up and down, strained by the heavy burden on each end. It was also apparent that the instrument package was quite heavy from Beans efforts and movements.”

(MGTE) Page 68 “Astronauts were sent to the Bend, Oregon area to get their Moon Legs. Walter Cunningham was the first to try out the Moon suit, backpack life support system, and certain tools to be used by Armstrong and Aldrin on the Moon excursion.” “That the astronauts were able to maneuver around at all in the Bend, Oregon area with their gear on suggests that the gear weighed far less than 185 pounds. (The weight that we were all given.)”

(MGTE) Page 72-73 “When Apollo 14 astronauts were in view of the south flank of Cone Crater, Shephard went down on one knee to pick up a rock and required the aid of Mitchell to stand up. About 2/3 of the way to their destination, their heart rates were up to 120 beats per minute as they moved uphill.” “As they climbed, Shephards rate reached 150 per minute and Mitchells went to 128.” “The astronauts never reached Cone Crater. They went back down hill toward Weird Crater to collect rock samples, then on to triplet to dig trenches.”

(MGTE) Page 74 “The author observed one of the Apollo 14 astronauts in a movie film of the mission. The astronaut was running in semislow-motion in an otherwise perfectly normal manner. The discrepancy arises when it I considered that the astronaut went no higher off the surface and went no farther with each step than he would have on Earth. The slow-motion effects could not cover up this fact. This suggests that the film speed was adjusted to slow down the action to give the impression that the astronauts were lighter than they actually were. With the slow-motion effects, objects would appear to fall more slowly and the public would be convinced of the Moons weak gravity.”

(MGTE) Page 75 “The Rover was supposedly designed for the Moons one-sixth gravity, but close examination indicates that it resembled a vehicle more suitable for near-Earth gravity. It was approximately 10 feet long and 4 feet high, with a 7.5 foot wheelbase and 6 foot tread width. The wheels were 32″ in diameter with chevron-shaped treads of Titanium, not much different looking than an Earth tire.”

(MGTE) Page 76-77 “…a minimum-size vehicle (for use on the Moon) would need a wheelbase of 20 feet to give it speed capability over rough terrain…To keep the center of gravity to within 6 feet of the surface, it would need a tread width of 20 feet”

(MGTE) Page 77 “The Rover encountered mostly loose dust and rocks on the Moon. This type of surface would have less traction than ordinary pavement. The Rover had a loaded Earth weight of 1,540 lbs. Under one-sixth gravity, only 128 lbs. of force would be required to make the vehicle slide. Therefore, in going the maximum speed of 10.2 MPH, the vehicle would begin to slide if the wheels were turned enough to make a radius of curvature of less than 84 feet. Even at 5 MPH, the minimum curvature would be 20 feet. The operator would have to be extremely careful not to make any abrupt changes in direction since a sharp turn could tip it over.”

(See the tracks of the Rover in NASA photo #71-HC-277 (click below image) it shows the tracks of the Rover while being driven by one of the astronauts.

I’m not sure what point you are trying to make. You’ve just posted a bunch of quotes from a book that you’ve taken out of context.

I had to Google “MGTE” to figure out what book you are pulling the quotes from… I’m assuming it is “Moongate” by William L. Brian.

“The movie film of this event is even more revealing. As Bean carried the instrument package across the lunar surface, the bar bent up and down, strained by the heavy burden on each end. It was also apparent that the instrument package was quite heavy from Beans efforts and movements.”

Yeah, so what? There is gravity on the Moon, so why can’t something appear heavy? Maybe Bean wouldn’t have been able to carry it at all on Earth… so what’s your point?

“That the astronauts were able to maneuver around at all in the Bend, Oregon area with their gear on suggests that the gear weighed far less than 185 pounds. (The weight that we were all given.)”

The suits worn by the astronauts during training on Earth were not the same as the suits worn on the Moon. They were just designed to give the astronauts an idea of what it would be like. They lacked all of the heavy life support equipment that was unnecessary on Earth.

“When Apollo 14 astronauts were in view of the south flank of Cone Crater, Shephard went down on one knee to pick up a rock and required the aid of Mitchell to stand up. About 2/3 of the way to their destination, their heart rates were up to 120 beats per minute as they moved uphill.”

So what? Working hard on the Moon increases your heart rate. What is so unusual about that? During on of the first American spacewalks one astronaut, Gene Cernan, had an extremely high heart rate and there was concern that he was going to pass out or have a heart attack… and this was in zero-G. You don’t have to be in full Earth gravity to suffer from physical exertion.

“The author observed one of the Apollo 14 astronauts in a movie film of the mission. The astronaut was running in semislow-motion in an otherwise perfectly normal manner. The discrepancy arises when it I considered that the astronaut went no higher off the surface and went no farther with each step than he would have on Earth.”

That is just the author’s opinion, and I believe he’s even being intentionally deceptive. I’ve seen plenty of footage of the astronauts jumping higher or leaping further on the Moon. I’ve seen them do a lot of things that would be impossible on Earth.

“The Rover was supposedly designed for the Moons one-sixth gravity, but close examination indicates that it resembled a vehicle more suitable for near-Earth gravity.”

This is why you can’t quote a book out of context. Is he talking about the actual lunar rover, or the training vehicle used on Earth?

“…a minimum-size vehicle (for use on the Moon) would need a wheelbase of 20 feet to give it speed capability over rough terrain…To keep the center of gravity to within 6 feet of the surface, it would need a tread width of 20 feet”

LOL. Why would it need a wheel base of 20 feet? They weren’t worried about speed… the rovers only had a top speed of 8 mph.

And a tread width of 20 feet! Ha ha ha! Normal tires have tread widths measured in millimeters or inches, not feet. The author of that book is a moron.

Those are by far the two best quotes I found about the moon landing hoax:

“The author [of a book] observed one of the Apollo 14 astronauts in a movie film of the mission. The astronaut was running in semi slow-motion in an otherwise perfectly normal manner. The discrepancy arises when I considered that the astronaut went no higher off the surface and went no farther with each step than he would have on Earth.”

Of course it’s only the author opinion, one shared by many by the way. When talking about moon landing hoax, video slow-motion is an unavoidable subject, and a strong one. Physics here!

“The Rover encountered mostly loose dust and rocks on the Moon. This type of surface would have less traction than ordinary pavement. The Rover had a loaded Earth weight of 1,540 lbs. Under one-sixth gravity, only 128 lbs. of force would be required to make the vehicle slide. Therefore, in going the maximum speed of 10.2 MPH, the vehicle would begin to slide if the wheels were turned enough to make a radius of curvature of less than 84 feet. Even at 5 MPH, the minimum curvature would be 20 feet. The operator would have to be extremely careful not to make any abrupt changes in direction since a sharp turn could tip it over.”

I’m surprised that Mr. LunarOrbit(er) didn’t comment on this one, it’s a big slap, oh yeah… I can’t really think outside the box about some matters that I can’t relate to but when it comes to driving a four wheel vehicle in near “0 gravity” I can understand how gravity can affect friction, even though I never drove anything in near “0 gravity” I suppose that having less gravity gives you less friction pretty much like driving on an icy terrain with earth’s gravity. Hoax or not, there’s at least a 50% chance either way.

When some debunker talks about the fact that the astronauts placed a mirror on the moon for the purpose of bouncing back laser beams, and that constitutes proof of man moon landings, I’ll say this: That is a fact that is always out of context, even if valid it doesn’t prove anything more than hoaxers arguments do. That’s because when we approach the subject from a hoaxer point of view we tend to speculate on recorded events (video, images). Debunkers (believers) tend to refute an hoaxer argument with higher truths, such as the mirrors. One may not be able to deny there are mirrors on the moon but can certainly speculate about who or what put them there. Allegedly, the first mirror was left by Aldrin and Armstrong after they landed on the Sea of Tranquility on 21 July 1969, one of five known as “corner mirrors” or “retro-reflector arrays” that were taken to the moon in the later 1960s and early 1970s. Two other corner mirrors were brought to the moon by astronauts on later manned lunar flights, on the Apollo 14 and the Apollo 15 missions. In addition, a second pair was built by French scientists and flown to the moon by the Soviet Union on their robot Luna probes. That’s right, probes can deliver mirrors too!

Also there is this curious recent discovery about a lunar rock that was given to a former Dutch Prime Minister by the name of Willem Drees during a goodwill tour by the three Apollo-11 astronauts shortly after their moon mission in 1969. When Mr Drees died, the rock went on display at the Amsterdam museum. After all this time and for an unknown reason some researchers at Amsterdam’s Free University looked at it skeptically and were able to tell at a glance that the rock was unlikely to be from the moon, a conclusion that was borne out by tests. The results tell that this rock is nothing more than petrified wood. The US space agency gave moon rocks to more than 100 countries following lunar missions in the 1970s. To the other gifted countries I would say: test them and find out.

For me it is that easy to say that the moon landings never happened. And in a sense they never did because I wasn’t born yet when they occurred. I’ll believe in what I want because I find it more easy to believe it was a hoax and someday be convinced otherwise than having to believe above any doubt in something that could someday be proven fake. Yes, I’m a pessimistic guy and I live happily by having low expectations about almost everything. Question: When will we really go to the moon? And to what purpose?

Then you’re a gullible fool who hasn’t bothered to learn anything about Apollo.

And in a sense they never did because I wasn’t born yet when they occurred.

What does the year you were born have to do with the reality of Apollo landing on the Moon? Are you really saying “it didn’t happen because I wasn’t there to witness it”? Do you also believe the contents of your refrigerator cease to exist when you close the door just because you can no longer see it?

I was born in 1975, three years after the last Apollo Moon landing… but I have no problem believing they really happened. I’m not so egotistical that I believe the universe only began when I was born.

I’ll believe in what I want because I find it more easy to believe it was a hoax

Believing in what you want to believe rather than what the facts support is irrational. Why are you so proud of that? It’s foolish.

Saying that you find it “easier” to believe it was a hoax sounds like laziness to me. You find it easier because you aren’t putting any effort into verifying what other conspiracy theorists are telling you. You are accepting their claims as facts without even bothering to look into it yourself. That, my friend, makes you the “sheep” that you accuse NASA supporters of being.

I live happily by having low expectations about almost everything.

That sounds like just another way of saying “ignorance is bliss”. I almost feel sorry for you.

“Then you’re a gullible fool who hasn’t bothered to learn anything about Apollo.”

Sure, I picked up a few things here and there but never put that much effort in disseminating Apollo material. I am as gullible as the next guy who believes in moon landings only based on footage and images without dissemination, you are just convinced beyond any doubt it’s not the other way around. As for calling me a fool is unnecessary, but unfortunately you seem to like the term so much.

“What does the year you were born have to do with the reality of Apollo landing on the Moon? Are you really saying “it didn’t happen because I wasn’t there to witness it”? Do you also believe the contents of your refrigerator cease to exist when you close the door just because you can no longer see it?”

In a way yes, that’s exactly what I am saying. And someday developments in science could really prove that contents of your refrigerator cease to exist when you close the door. Schroedinger paradox suggests something like that. That’s off topic of course. I’m just saying that I feel less compelled to believe on moon landings because: a) I’m a gullible fool; b) Not being a part of Apollo “reality”, I have no emotion attached to the USA or moon landings, which could convince a gullible fool like me in a glimpse; c) Reading comments like yours;

“I’m not so egotistical that I believe the universe only began when I was born.”

That’s what you got out of my comment, it doesn’t mean that it was my intention to say. English is not my mother language so I guess I wrote nonsense rather than being misinterpreted, also it means I won’t be as good as you when it comes to insults . Either way, keep throwing insults at my personality, you seem to take personal satisfaction from it. Somehow it explains why you post comments the way you do.

“Believing in what you want to believe rather than what the facts support is irrational. Why are you so proud of that? It’s foolish.”

Well yes, and no. It’s impossible from your stand point to extract anything about my proud. Also you seem to think that calling someone a fool makes you right every time.

“Saying that you find it “easier” to believe it was a hoax sounds like laziness to me. You find it easier because you aren’t putting any effort into verifying what other conspiracy theorists are telling you. You are accepting their claims as facts without even bothering to look into it yourself. That, my friend, makes you the “sheep” that you accuse NASA supporters of being.”

No, I meant it would be less disappointing. Even if I don’t put enough effort into verifying “other” conspiracy theorists views I doubt you could convince the most persistent and informed ones with your smart mouth. Some of them made compelling documentaries and points of view, as for you, not that compelling. Bear in mind that I don’t use the term “sheep”, I don’t judge people that way, you on the other hand seem to use pre-designed answers from past arguments.

“That sounds like just another way of saying “ignorance is bliss”. I almost feel sorry for you.”

Sure, anything you say boss.

In sum you say a lot (of shit) but you’re not as constructive as you think you are. I’m not above or bellow you, I’m aside. I respect your point of view and agree that my lack of understanding about Apollo missions may be one of the reasons of my skepticism and disbelief. It couldn’t matter less.

I’m with you LunarO, These hoaxers are ignorant, lazy, spoiled, arrogant, disrespectful, reckless, irresponsible, and uneducated in Apollo, Physics, Aeronautics, Rocket propulsion, guidance and propulsion in a z-g vacuum, and just about everything else. I feel your aggravation man, people like this sadden me.

The best response to the radiation issue that I can think of doesn’t require any knowledge of radiation to understand. It just requires people to think logically.

NASA can’t control the radiation. They can’t make the radiation weaker, or stronger. They can’t make it go away. They also can’t control every person who might discover the radiation for the rest of time. This means they can not successfully lie about it because if they did they would eventually get caught. It’s 100% certain to be discovered by someone at some point.

It would be like if I were to tell you it was raining when it was really a sunny day. How long would it take you to discover I was lying? You’d only have to look out the window. So why would I lie about it if I knew I’d get caught? It would make no sense. Right?

So NASA can’t control the radiation, they can’t hide the radiation, they can’t stop the Russians from discovering the radiation… that means they can’t lie about it. If they did the Russians would discover they were lying pretty quickly and that would be the end of the hoax.

Wouldn’t it be more embarrassing if it was discovered that the United States faked the Moon landings than if they had just admitted that going to the Moon was impossible?

NASA discovered the Van Allen radiation belt in 1957… four years before Kennedy announced the goal of going to the Moon. If they had known going to the Moon would be impossible in 1957 why would Kennedy announce such a goal in 1961? Why even put the idea into the public’s head if there was no intention of going?

This is why the whole hoax theory fails. It does not make sense logically. It is full of holes and contradictions.

Hoax Believer (HB): “We had to fake the Moon landings to fool the Russians.”

Logic: “But the Russians would have discovered the radiation and realized NASA was lying.”

HB: “Okay, then the Russians must have been in on it.”

Logic: “Then what was the point of faking it???”

HB: “To fool the public and meet Kennedy’s goal.”

Logic: “But if NASA knew about the radiation before Kennedy made the speech then he wouldn’t have made it in the first place.”

The hoax theory is so flawed that I don’t understand why anyone believes it.

LunarOrbit, I appreciate you taking the time to look at the NASA photo.

There is a shoe print that closely resembles the pattern of a 60’s or 70’s KEDS (Tennis Shoe). It is located just under the print of a Squared-ribbed(standard issue Space suit boot)print at about 6:00 on the picture.

Just for the fun, and I stress that I did not verify any of the “facts” stated here, here’s a hoaxer citation:

[Even if most of the alleged US Moon rocks are real, the Russians were able to bring back a small Lunar sample with an unmanned probe (Could US probes bring back larger samples? Were people on the Moon even needed for that?). Anyway, unlike the Apollo lunar samples, their Soviet counterparts exhibit triboluminescence and non-oxidation, contain 6 to 9 times more mercury (which should be uniformly distributed on the lunar surface), orders of magnitude more molybdenum, wolfram, cadmium and silver, and have 50 times lower thermoluminescence sensitivity. Also, A. Dollfus and E. Bouell of the Paris Observatory found that unlike the NASA samples, the polarisation of reflected light from the Soviet samples corresponds to that from the Moon surface. Geochemist Minoru Ozima of the Tokyo University discovered that the nitrogen-14/nitrogen-15 isotope ratio in the Apollo lunar samples is very different from that in the solar wind whose blasts drilled these atoms into the lunar soil. A possible explanation is that the Apollo’s soil was made on Earth. In the 1990s, publications about lunar soil simulation started to appear. If they appeared earlier, they would raise questions about the Apollo programme.

27 of 61 space rocket launches in 1968 were secret, and 20 of 47 were secret in 1969. That’s 47 secret launches. What were they doing? Sending probes to pick up lunar samples? Sending probes to place mirrors on the Moon? Doing their camera tricks in Earth’s orbit to make it appear as if they were much farther from Earth than they really were?

PS – Don’t call us “conspiracy theorists”. This is a pejorative stigma that basically says “We don’t like you, and your thoughts should not be taken seriously by others”. We are Apollo skeptics and Moon-hoax theorists. We’re not sheeple.

Maybe you should. You’d look less like a fool if you didn’t constantly cite unverified claims.

Even if most of the alleged US Moon rocks are real, the Russians were able to bring back a small Lunar sample with an unmanned probe

Yes, the Russians brought back roughly 326 grams of lunar material. 326 grams! The Apollo astronauts, on the other hand, brought back over 840 lbs. of rock and soil, including core samples in the form of long cylinders. This would have been nearly impossible for robotic probes.

Could US probes bring back larger samples?

Possibly, but prove to me that those probes existed outside of your imagination. Where are the engineers who built, tested, launched, and retrieved these probes?

Were people on the Moon even needed for that?

Probes capable of returning over 840 lbs. of lunar samples would have had to be far more advanced than the Soviet probes. It would have been easier just to send people.

Back in the 1960s spy satellites photographed their targets on film that had to be returned to Earth for analysis. It wasn’t like todays spy satellites that can transmit images back to Earth using radio and remain in orbit for years. Every time a satellite’s film was used up they would have to launch a new satellite to replace it.

Sending probes to pick up lunar samples? Sending probes to place mirrors on the Moon?

Pure speculation.

A few small probes could not have returned 840 lbs. of lunar samples. Landing the probes on the Moon would have been unreliable at best.

Doing their camera tricks in Earth’s orbit to make it appear as if they were much farther from Earth than they really were?

This just goes to show how little you understand about Apollo.

There is video footage of the astronauts in zero-G with the distant Earth in the background. But the really cool thing about this video footage is that it shows cloud formations on Earth that perfectly match the weather forecasts for the date that the video was broadcast. You can’t fake this.

Check this link out for more information:

http://bit.ly/hrthwv

PS – Don’t call us “conspiracy theorists”. This is a pejorative stigma that basically says “We don’t like you, and your thoughts should not be taken seriously by others”. We are Apollo skeptics and Moon-hoax theorists. We’re not sheeple.

Boo-hoo. You are theorizing about possible conspiracies. That makes you a conspiracy theorist, whether you like it or not.

Explain this petrified wood being passed off as a Moon rock.

It was never passed off as a Moon rock, and it wasn’t presented to the Dutch Prime Minister by the Apollo 11 astronauts or NASA.

The petrified wood was given to the Dutch PM by the US Ambassador at a ceremony honouring the crew of Apollo 11. But it was never claimed that it was a Moon rock. NASA hadn’t even begun gifting Moon rocks at the time (after just one mission to the Moon the US wasn’t about to give away their lunar samples). The US only began gifting Moon rocks in the mid-1970s after the end of the Apollo program.

As I said, did not verify any of this

As I said, maybe you should start verifying things before you make yourself look like a fool.

It also proves that moon hoax believers love to cherry-pick and take things out of context to “support” their ridiculous claims.

——

The rest of the citation is ridiculous. Notice how it doesn’t provide any sources, it just puts some strange-looking words in there and ta-da.

Lunar rocks are almost entirely composed of 4 minerals: plagioclase, pyroxene, olivine, and ilmenite. The only article which sites any presence of mercury on the lunar samples is this one:

http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/howdoweknow.htm

And it says that mercury appears rarely and is present in a very very low abundance!

There IS a paper on it but the abstract isn’t available:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979rhrm.conf..468B

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979lhls.book..468B

—

It also cites A. Dollfus (who worked with NASA on lunar soil) and E. Bowell (yes, it’s Bowell, not Bouell) but provides no citation again. So I decided to do my search that took quite some hours:

1) First, I searched for ner0’s quote on the Internet until I found a web that provided citations (https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Moon_Landings_Hoax#Details) (jump to Lunar Samples) that redirected me to a book by Yuri Mukhin.

2) After more search, I was finally able to find his book (?????? ?????, ??? ??? ?? ???? ??????????) in a djvu format. So I downloaded the program, opened the file and decided to search through the pages given by the citation. I ended in page 216, which cited the work done by Dollfus and Bowell titled “Photo-polarization studies of lunar samples – Negative branch”(http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974lssf.book..517D) from the book “Lunar Soil from the Sea of Fertility” (?????? ????? ?? ???? ???????? in Russian).

3) Since it was only an abstract, I decided to search more for the pages where the original work was (477-485 and 517-523 in the original Russian book). I was able to find the English version here: http://archive.org/stream/nasa_techdoc_19750003742/19750003742#page/n495/mode/2up

4) Since moon hoax believers could say the English version was mistranslated (I found it on NASA archives after all) I decided to compare the quotes of the study in Russian given by Mukhin in his book, translated with Google translate, with the English version. And they did match, not perfectly since I was using Google translate, but they matched.

5) After that, I decided to read through the study. I also found another work done by them, the same year (1974) I believe, which is here: (http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1974LPSC….5.1159E/0001159.000.html). Abstract: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974LPSC….5.1159E

It turns out that the breccia from Apollo 14 that was studied (breccia 14267) was composed of three surfaces: dust-covered exterior regions, glass-covered surfaces and a freshly-chipped surface.

The dust-covered regions closely resembled the Moon’s surface, the glass-covered surfaces not so much, while the freshly-chipped surface cannot entirely reproduce the overall nature of the lunar polarization, YET the albedo curve was still representative of the LUNAR HIGHLANDS.

So both the Apollo 14 and Luna 16 samples were legit.

The abstract regarding the history of this breccia also states the same. The dust-covered external regions and the freshly-chipped region are representative of the Moon because they come from the Moon. Period.

It shows, once again, that moon hoax believers cherry-pick data and completely take it out of context.

——

But the best part of all is the citation of the work of Minoru Ozima. It says “a possible explanation is that the Apollo’s soil was made on Earth” or “The explanation is simple—the Apollo’s soil was made on Earth” as if was the only actual explanation. Minoru Ozima’s paper can be found here:

“Here we propose that most of the nitrogen and some of the other volatile elements in lunar soils may actually have come from the Earth’s atmosphere rather than the solar wind. —We infer that this hypothesis is quantitatively reasonable if the escape of atmospheric gases, and implantation into lunar soil grains, occurred at a time when the Earth had essentially no geomagnetic field.—”

“Ozima’s team now argues that some of the nitrogen came from the Earth before it got its magnetic shield. Energetic cosmic particles would have whacked into the atmosphere, kicking some charged nitrogen atoms into space. Some of this nitrogen, which is richer in nitrogen-15 than the solar wind, would have wound up on the Moon.

The team used computer models to work out how much nitrogen would have flown from the pre-magnetic Earth to the Moon. Then, by calculating how long the soil must have been sucking up nitrogen to attain its current isotopic ratio, they speculate that the Earth’s magnetic field must have been either very weak or non-existent before about 3.9 billion years ago.”

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050803/full/news050801-8.html

So you also falsified the paper given by Ozima, indirectly putting words in his and his team’s mouths.

—

So I’d like to thank ner0 for proving that moon hoax believers are not only idiots and cherry-pickers, but that they are the actual LIARS here, not NASA or the Apollo astronauts.